As a leftist living in capitalism, I've realized that capitalism isn't going anywhere and that I need to secure housing, healthcare, education, and retirement. This requires participation in capitalism which is an ethical dilemma.

Quote :

"Thats correct. it was never an argument about semantics or if I rent a house. The full context of the argument is that landlords generally hoard housing supply to exploit tenants and I am a landlord therefore I do those things. The literal term applies even if general assumptions about the term don't necessarily apply. This requires context. Those assumptions are directly tied to a history of a very few people owning a disproportionate amount of land and using their capital to generate profit at the expense of the working class. We are using the same term to describe a person who rents their one personal home out at a cheap price for a few years months or even weeks.

and zooming out, its about the hypocrisy of being a leftist living in a capitalist country and participating in the economy at all really. Its also about the concept because by definition, I literally choose to participate in capitalism. The problem is that the only alternative in my birth country would be to risk homelessness and death. To me, that is an alienation and not a "real choice".

Jesus H seems to think its better to deprive yourself within the capitalist system for the sake of virtue signaling instead of entering a mutually beneficial, yet capitalist social agreement within the capitalist system. The version of me that takes a 2 hour commute and makes Peter pay 40% more somewhere else is ethically superior in his book.

Daave picks and chooses which parts of it he finds unacceptable which is fine, but my biggest problem is that he offers no olive branch or alternative way forward other than vague suggestions that already apply to what I am doing. Neither seems to be able to justify helping landlords exploit while being exploited by them as the solution over being a landlord while helping myself and others avoid being exploited in long-term.

In general, if you want to bring about change, you have to do a lot more than just condemn others for doing things the normal way. I hear the word contrarian a lot but then all I see are people criticizing everything without providing alternatives. Criticizing actions by painting the path for the right way forward is a more productive strategy."

[Edited on April 27, 2020 at 1:41 PM. Reason : one person who owns one home is not the same as one person who owns 1000 ]

It's very very simple. Living under capitalism requires consuming unethically produced goods. It does not require exploiting people via rent or profit extraction. If you're a leftist...don't do that. You should not be economically vested in sources of wealth that are fundamentally opposed to your own supposed ideology. And this bizarre, economically-illiterate defense of your status as a landlord illustrates exactly why.

^^^ So, just to clarify, he should kick them out and immediately report his tenants as evicted to whatever background check companies he can find. Hopefully that would save them from now or ever again being exploited by a landlord?

You socialists really are nuts. Housing is not now nor will it ever be free, so there will always be a landlord of some-sort, even if it is the worker run collective that built it, jacking up rents because they decided their labor was worth ever more in hindsight.

I don't give a shit what horosho does with his house, as long as his tenant is taken care of. People are allowed to make mistakes and live through them. The issue here is his incredibly stupid defense.

Critical thinking. Blindly applying a text written 150 years ago to circumstances that did not yet exist is really missing the point and is very similar to religious fundamentalism.

Quote :

"You should not be economically vested in sources of wealth that are fundamentally opposed to your own supposed ideology. "

Being homeless is not part of my ideology. You already excused Bernie Sanders for owning stock because its "for retirement" even though he is guaranteed a massive government pension for life. You are the one not being consistent because you excused Bernie owning two. homes. Not everyone inherits houses or makes enough to buy one. Renting has to be done regardless of whether I think it should exist.

My ideology involves everyone having a right to own one home (not 0 or 2 like you've suggested). Its the most essential path towards avoiding the exploitation you think I'm doing. My actions are actually leading to everyone involved owning a home because my tenant saves 40% every month and will have more money when he gets to where he wants to buy. I could easily get market value but chose to have this mutually beneficial relationship.